- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 01 Nov 2002 16:33:45 -0600
- To: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>
- Cc: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 2002-11-01 at 16:10, Smith, Michael K wrote: > > Regarding Mime types and content negotiation. > > I want to present examples that will work without reference to > the particular server/client pairing. So I am inclined to leave > the suffixes in. No. Sorry I don't have time to elaborate just now, but this is a show-stopping objection. To leave the suffixes in would be counter to our decision ========= excerpt from http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf3.html PROPOSED: to use for the namespace name: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl# RESOLVED ACTION Connoly to get the above OK'd by the W3C webmaster/director; ACTION Dean to update the reference document ========= > Is there somewhere I could point the reader > so that they can understand the issues/advantages of using > content negotiation? For now, please put some sort of "NOTE: explain this better next time" editorial note. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 17:33:29 UTC